I'm with DW all the way on this.
|
quote pfsrd
If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell's level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent's spell and can attempt to counter it.
unquote
Since the check is being made when the caster tries to cast a spell obviously the spell has not taken form yet.(for purposes of countering anyway, otherwise you can ID after the fact)
Further spellcraft for this operates like perception which only covers the five senses. If there is nothing to hear, see, smell, touch, or taste you can't make a successful perception check.
If casting with silent, still, and eschew then there is nothing to perceive until the spell is cast, at that time you can identify but it's to late to counter.
|
|
First,...
Charm person would never ever work if there were undeniable signs of spellcasting.Would you mind expanding upon the idea that Charm Person would not work if you saw, for example, a small flash of blue light? I don't see how this would make the spell impossible. Magic will still affect the target's mind, would it not? I'm not certain I see what made you come to this conclusion.
There is even a skill trick to sleight of hand to to cast spells with somatic comps and make the movements unrecognized as spellcasting with the example given of using charm person on someone at a party and no one being the wiser.
Second, Charm person makes them see you favorably like a friend but I would never be happy about a friend casting mind altering spells on me, ever. The subject of the spell isn't compelled to act in any way other then it would for any of it's other friends.
So would you be happy about having your friend casting what's very likely an illegal mind altering spell on you? And would you let them do it again? What about the others in the area when you cast it?
Or you know that your friend is a supersmart wizard that probably has a very good reason to do what it does. You would probably question the action, ask why he's doing something like that and what the spell does (if it can't ID it), but you would treat his answer in the best way possible. So the wizard might have to roll a bluff check, depending on circumstances. With a fat hefty bonus for the target thinking your his best friend.
Oh and here's a whole thread on the charm person issue
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/spellsThatDontReallyWorkAsAdvertised
|
The problem is some of you have been reading way too many novels and playing too many video games.
If your argument is based off of a video such as Baldur's Gate then we have a big problem.
I will repeat this once again. No where in the book does it say anything about special visual effects taking place during the casting of a spell.
|
|
The problem is some of you have been reading way too many novels and playing too many video games.
If your argument is based off of a video such as Baldur's Gate then we have a big problem.
I will repeat this once again. No where in the book does it say anything about special visual effects taking place during the casting of a spell.
I think you're reading too many rulebooks.
The problem is some of you have been reading way too many novels and playing too many video games.
If your argument is based off of a video such as Baldur's Gate then we have a big problem.
I will repeat this once again. No where in the book does it say anything about special visual effects taking place during the casting of a spell.
Nowhere does it say you can see a wall of stone either.
|
I have to disagree. Making spells impossible to counter gives these feats absolutely no power increase whatsoever since nobody ever counterspells to begin with. They just ready an action to blast opposing casters with damage spells, forcing impossible to beat Concentration check DCs.
I counterspell quite often. Because when you can, it ALWAYS works. Maybe your caster has a defense against your blasty spell. Maybe you have an ally who'd be zapped by your blasty spell, maybe you'll actually miss on your ray. It's not a very great option for a sorcerer, who's pretty much stuck with the dispel method but generally a fairly good choice for a wizard, especially a generalist with improved counterspell.
|
|
*facepalm* You really do seem to just try to disagree with everything I say, don't you? .
It's sort of inevitable. You're of the "I can cheese just about anything with magic camp." I'm in the "Strict as hell, and when in doubt the answer is no about magic camp."
So we're going to disagree quite often. If I find something we do agree with, I'll let you know.
|
page 113: Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Whether or not
a spell has been enhanced by a metamagic feat does not
affect its vulnerability to counterspelling or its ability to
counterspell another spell (see Chapter 9).
Doesn't that pretty much say you can counterspell regardless of the feat they took to "hide" the spell being cast? IE. those on this LONG thread who said you can still "see spells" being cast are RIGHT, regardless of whether a mage is eating a twig, waving his hands and saying "alakazam" - there is still a magic effect visibly taking effect. Or page 113 says rather, it still don't matter... you can counter it even without waving hands, words, or components being used up.
Oh and here's a whole thread on the charm person issue
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/spellsThatDontReallyWorkAsAdvertised
I was curious to check that thread out, but the link didn't appear to work.
The problem is some of you have been reading way too many novels
One of the few times in my life that reading has been painted as a bad thing. ^.^
Second, Charm person makes them see you favorably like a friend but I would never be happy about a friend casting mind altering spells on me, ever.
Well, since the spell makes you see them as favorable friends, then you WOULD be happy about it.
"Hey, did you just Charm me? Awesome! I'm so happy that I like you now!"
Anyway, the fallacy of the logic you presented is that Charm Person would NEVER work, if you hid it or not, because it never says that it makes the target oblivious to the fact that their mood just drastically changed.
page 113: Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Whether or not
a spell has been enhanced by a metamagic feat does not
affect its vulnerability to counterspelling or its ability to
counterspell another spell (see Chapter 9).Doesn't that pretty much say you can counterspell regardless of the feat they took to "hide" the spell being cast? IE. those on this LONG thread who said you can still "see spells" being cast are RIGHT, regardless of whether a mage is eating a twig, waving his hands and saying "alakazam" - there is still a magic effect visibly taking effect. Or page 113 says rather, it still don't matter... you can counter it even without waving hands, words, or components being used up.
This thread has gotten so long that this essentially goes back to repeating old points of interest. The opposition will, and has, countered this by pointing out that counter-spelling requires identification. Since they are willing to treat the two as very separate things, metamagic feats are affecting the identification and not the counter-spelling itself.
Yay! Now I'm finishing the arguments of the people who believe differently from me just because I've been here long enough to know what they've said!
Granted, I always felt that this is stretching the rules a bit, as the sentence pointed out above would be completely unnecessary if the two actions were not intended to be linked. I mean, why even print it in the rules if the intent is to exempt the identification half?
EDIT: Link on Charm Person thread
page 113: Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Whether or not
a spell has been enhanced by a metamagic feat does not
affect its vulnerability to counterspelling or its ability to
counterspell another spell (see Chapter 9).Doesn't that pretty much say you can counterspell regardless of the feat they took to "hide" the spell being cast? IE. those on this LONG thread who said you can still "see spells" being cast are RIGHT, regardless of whether a mage is eating a twig, waving his hands and saying "alakazam" - there is still a magic effect visibly taking effect. Or page 113 says rather, it still don't matter... you can counter it even without waving hands, words, or components being used up.
I don't think that refers to the same thing. I think the point there is that an Empowered Fireball is still a Fireball and can be countered with a Fireball.
Otherwise, using Enlarge spell to cast the spell from the other side of a thick fog so there's full concealment between you and the counterspeller won't hinder it from counterspelling. It could very well be possible, I just don't think it's likely the RAI.
Now, I agree with the conclusion (there are always visible effects) since it's both suggested by other parts of RAW and the stated intent of the rules, but I don't agree with that phrasing affecting it.
Silent and still spell are for being able to cast while silenced or prevented from performing somatic components. Allowing them to stop all attempts at identifying the spells makes them too powerful for the spell level adjustment they have.I have to disagree. Making spells impossible to counter gives these feats absolutely no power increase whatsoever since nobody ever counterspells to begin with. They just ready an action to blast opposing casters with damage spells, forcing impossible to beat Concentration check DCs.
It actually is still important. Because if there is no spellcasting to see, then you can't know when a spell is being cast. If you cast defensively, there is not lapse in your defenses to let your opponent know you are doing something else. If you cannot know when a spell is being cast, then a readied action to hit the spellcaster when the cast also fails.
So the power increase would be that the combination also protects you from readied actions to disrupt your casting.
|
|
Nowhere does it say you can see a wall of stone either.The problem is some of you have been reading way too many novels and playing too many video games.
If your argument is based off of a video such as Baldur's Gate then we have a big problem.
I will repeat this once again. No where in the book does it say anything about special visual effects taking place during the casting of a spell.
Seriously? You have to be taking the piss.
Wall of Stone
School conjuration (creation) [earth]; Level cleric 5, druid 6,
sorcerer/wizard 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (a small block of granite)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect stone wall whose area is up to one 5-ft. square/level (S)
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw see text; Spell Resistance no
This spell creates a wall of rock that merges into adjoining rock
surfaces.
Creates a wall of rock. When something is created it is seen unless otherwise noted.
Some spells have visual effects as described in their description that happen after the spell is cast.
I'm still waiting on these visual effects that keep being brought up during this discussion. Where is it in the book?
|
|
I think you're reading too many rulebooks.The problem is some of you have been reading way too many novels and playing too many video games.
If your argument is based off of a video such as Baldur's Gate then we have a big problem.
I will repeat this once again. No where in the book does it say anything about special visual effects taking place during the casting of a spell.
That's the best thing because it weeds out a lot of the crap that people try and get away with in this game.
|
|
The bottom line is there are no "as you cast the spell visuals" going on, period. All the designers did was forget about Silent, Still and Eschew Materials when rewriting the rules on counterspelling and identifying, mistakes happen and it wasn't their first no will it be their last. Trying to justify the RAI with GMfiat is not the answer.
The only sure way is for the designers to rewrite the counterspelling and identifying rules to make them clear. Also, they may need to find some better uses for the Silent, Still and Eschew Materials feats because they are almost useless because they are so situational.
I'm with Ashiel here (unusual, that :)
There's nothing that says spells are somehow undetectable just because you've stilled and silenced them. A spell is still being cast, and just as it still provokes an AoO, it is still identifiable. Whether there's a penalty and how much that penalty should be is up to your GM, but there's been many reasonable suggestions here.
The problem is that the RAW also doesn't say what, if anything, there is to "see" when someone is casting stilled and silently. By RAW, spellcasting has components. If you remove all of the spellcasting components, then logically, there is nothing left to see.
By RAW, no art/games/the way we play it, what do you perceive when someone casts a stilled, silent charm person?
Without that, we are left with each GM just making crap up on the spot, and you get the situation where one GM is just fine with a casters getting a silent, stilled charm person off on the kings evil adviser, while the next GM has every guard in a 200 foot radius come swarming at the "obvious" display of magic.
|
The problem is that the RAW also doesn't say what, if anything, there is to "see" when someone is casting stilled and silently. By RAW, spellcasting has components. If you remove all of the spellcasting components, then logically, there is nothing left to see.
...
First of all, that's not logic. You'e making a false assumption (there are components that can be seen, therefore there are *only* components to see) that the rules do not support. The Spellcraft rules require you to see the spell itself, not the components of the spell; you're juxtaposing the two without justification.
Second, you should probably read the thread through, because we've been over all this. Several times, in fact.
And we will keep going over it since both interpretations of the RAW are perfectly valid.
|
|
The problem is that the RAW also doesn't say what, if anything, there is to "see" when someone is casting stilled and silently. By RAW, spellcasting has components. If you remove all of the spellcasting components, then logically, there is nothing left to see....
First of all, that's not logic. You'e making a false assumption (there are components that can be seen, therefore there are *only* components to see) that the rules do not support. The Spellcraft rules require you to see the spell itself, not the components of the spell; you're juxtaposing the two without justification.
Second, you should probably read the thread through, because we've been over all this. Several times, in fact.
According to RAW, components are a part of the spell. See my fingers wiggling and my arms waving in circles, that's a somatic component by RAW.
See me pulling something out of my spell pouch, that's called a material component.
You see those things happening.
Please show me in the book that explains spell preparation visuals besides the RAW.
Nowhere does it say you can see a wall of stone either.The problem is some of you have been reading way too many novels and playing too many video games.
If your argument is based off of a video such as Baldur's Gate then we have a big problem.
I will repeat this once again. No where in the book does it say anything about special visual effects taking place during the casting of a spell.
The generally assume you can see physical objects.
The issue is this. The dev backed ruling, and 3.5 previous ruling are at odds.
We all know what the ruling will most likely be if this gets officially spoken on.
Personally I will use the 3.5 ruling because it makes more sense to me.
The rest of us will never be able to prove anything with the current reading so we either go with the ruling of the PF devs or go with the ruling of the 3.5 devs. With that said I am out.
PS:Be nice if they stick with the PF unofficial ruling. I want my FAQ's back.
The problem is that the RAW also doesn't say what, if anything, there is to "see" when someone is casting stilled and silently. By RAW, spellcasting has components. If you remove all of the spellcasting components, then logically, there is nothing left to see....
First of all, that's not logic. You'e making a false assumption (there are components that can be seen, therefore there are *only* components to see) that the rules do not support. The Spellcraft rules require you to see the spell itself, not the components of the spell; you're juxtaposing the two without justification.
Second, you should probably read the thread through, because we've been over all this. Several times, in fact.
Show me where in the RAW is states that there is more to the spellcasting to see than the components.
|
|
page 113: Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Whether or not
a spell has been enhanced by a metamagic feat does not
affect its vulnerability to counterspelling or its ability to
counterspell another spell (see Chapter 9).Doesn't that pretty much say you can counterspell regardless of the feat they took to "hide" the spell being cast? IE. those on this LONG thread who said you can still "see spells" being cast are RIGHT, regardless of whether a mage is eating a twig, waving his hands and saying "alakazam" - there is still a magic effect visibly taking effect. Or page 113 says rather, it still don't matter... you can counter it even without waving hands, words, or components being used up.
That says nothing about the ability to identify the spell only that a metamagiced spell can be countered with the non-metamagiced version and vice-versa.
And the AOO isn't provoked by the fighter seeing the wizard do something, it's the wizards lack of maintaining a good defense.
casting a spell has onced been described as doing calculus in your head while speaking sign language, and humming a symphony at the same time, even if doing all in your head that makes it difficult to pay attention to an opponent who will take advantage of the lapse in your defenses.
|
|
Show me where in the RAW is states that there is more to the spellcasting to see than the components.The problem is that the RAW also doesn't say what, if anything, there is to "see" when someone is casting stilled and silently. By RAW, spellcasting has components. If you remove all of the spellcasting components, then logically, there is nothing left to see....
First of all, that's not logic. You'e making a false assumption (there are components that can be seen, therefore there are *only* components to see) that the rules do not support. The Spellcraft rules require you to see the spell itself, not the components of the spell; you're juxtaposing the two without justification.
Second, you should probably read the thread through, because we've been over all this. Several times, in fact.
I've been asking for it for several posts and the only thing I am told is it doesn't say that components are all you see.
|
|
That's the best thing because it weeds out a lot of the crap that people try and get away with in this game.I think you're reading too many rulebooks.The problem is some of you have been reading way too many novels and playing too many video games.
If your argument is based off of a video such as Baldur's Gate then we have a big problem.
I will repeat this once again. No where in the book does it say anything about special visual effects taking place during the casting of a spell.
Regardless of rules if you let your players get away with junk like that then you are being a bad GM.
The book says specifically that the rules are guidelines aka the GM isn't forced into anything at anytime regardless of whats written in the book.
Kinda like the pirates code, in The Pirates of the Caribbean.
The only way I'm going to side on the Dev's ruling of Silenced/Stilled/Eschewed spells can be identified is if they release a relatively easy to get* feat that allows for stealth spellcasting.
* By this I mean, no harder to get than obtaining the Silent Spell, Still Spell, or Eschew Materials feats would be.
The only way I'm going to side on the Dev's ruling of Silenced/Stilled/Eschewed spells can be identified is if they release a relatively easy to get* feat that allows for stealth spellcasting.
* By this I mean, no harder to get than obtaining the Silent Spell, Still Spell, or Eschew Materials feats would be.
The rule is still the rule no matter if options are provided to get around it or not, just like the monk's abundant step stopped your action for that round before ultimate magic came out.
And we will keep going over it since both interpretations of the RAW are perfectly valid.
I've been trying to get people to understand this for almost 300 posts now. ^.^ The RAW is ambiguous and can't "prove" anybody correct.
According to RAW, components are a part of the spell.
Wait what? As far as I've seen, the RAW only says that:
A spell's components explain what you must do or possess to cast the spell.
It doesn't say that components are part of the spell, simply that they are part of casting the spell. Perhaps I'm missing something, so could you please clarify?
Show me where in the RAW is states that there is more to the spellcasting to see than the components.
Nobody claimed that there was RAW that states that. It's an assumption that creates the interpretation (that I myself belief) that works alongside of all the RAW rules nicely without messing up any intent. It's one of the only interpretations I've seen that doesn't fall prey to a logical loop created by the RAW phrasing.
shallowsoul believes that the logic loop is part of a mistype of the dev's intent. He could be correct.
I believe that the RAW works if you are willing to work within the bounds of an assumption. I could also be correct. The reasons why I like my interpretation is that the dev's backed it up and it's the only one I've seen that doesn't rely on there being a typo or bad logic.
However, what Shisumo was saying:
First of all, that's not logic. You'e making a false assumption (there are components that can be seen, therefore there are *only* components to see) that the rules do not support.
This is true. This is an assumption on your part when you infer that components required to cast a spell are equal to the spell itself required to see for identification. This isn't proof that your answer is any better than any other assumption being made by all other interpretations.
That's the best thing because it weeds out a lot of the crap that people try and get away with in this game.I think you're reading too many rulebooks.The problem is some of you have been reading way too many novels and playing too many video games.
If your argument is based off of a video such as Baldur's Gate then we have a big problem.
I will repeat this once again. No where in the book does it say anything about special visual effects taking place during the casting of a spell.
Regardless of rules if you let your players get away with junk like that then you are being a bad GM.
The book says specifically that the rules are guidelines aka the GM isn't forced into anything at anytime regardless of whats written in the book.
Kinda like the pirates code, in The Pirates of the Caribbean.
Yeah, no problem if you always play with the same group, but the problem is organized play or playing with different groups(like play by post). Ambiguous rules lead with different adjudications. The above example I gave with charm person means that 2 different DMs can adjudicate the exact same situation with completely different results. All because one DM reads the rules as "spellcasting == spell components" and another DM reads it as "spellcasting > spell components"
Somebody explain to me how an illusion spell can be cast as part of a bluff effort without giving away the bluff effort unless a still, silenced, eschewed materials spell is hard to detect.
Well, the short answer is that this has already been discussed in another thread.
I'd like to add to this, however, that you may avoid identification of the spell through Invisibility, Full Cover, and Concealment. Without identification, how would anybody know it is an illusion?
"That summoner just summoned a dragon, right?!"
"That evoker just cast a fireball, right?!"
Heheh... that illusionist just did his job.
Also, and I could be wrong on this, even identifying some illusions doesn't automatically mean success in disbelieving them. You may know it's an illusion, but your senses are screaming at you that this still hurts!
Somebody explain to me how an illusion spell can be cast as part of a bluff effort without giving away the bluff effort unless a still, silenced, eschewed materials spell is hard to detect.Well, the short answer is that this has already been discussed in another thread.
I'd like to add to this, however, that you may avoid identification of the spell through Invisibility, Full Cover, and Concealment. Without identification, how would anybody know it is an illusion?
"That summoner just summoned a dragon, right?!"
"That evoker just cast a fireball, right?!"Heheh... that illusionist just did his job.
Also, and I could be wrong on this, even identifying some illusions doesn't automatically mean success in disbelieving them. You may know it's an illusion, but your senses are screaming at you that this still hurts!
I would point out that full cover or concealment means that you don't have line of effect to your target or you can see them. That is a big deal if you are using enchantment spells that directly effect people.
I would point out that full cover or concealment means that you don't have line of effect to your target or you can see them. That is a big deal if you are using enchantment spells that directly effect people.
True, but there are lots of spells that are not direct target. For those that are, you need to be either a little clever (be invisible), or your foes need to be unable to identify (no spellcraft), or it is a mind affecting spell that has a decent Will disbelief.
All in all, the circumstance where this will hinder an Illusionist are a little rare I'd wager.
I would point out that full cover or concealment means that you don't have line of effect to your target or you can see them. That is a big deal if you are using enchantment spells that directly effect people.True, but there are lots of spells that are not direct target. For those that are, you need to be either a little clever (be invisible), or your foes need to be unable to identify (no spellcraft), or it is a mind affecting spell that has a decent Will disbelief.
All in all, the circumstance where this will hinder an Illusionist are a little rare I'd wager.
A well-prepared illusionist yes, but you don't always have time to cast invisibility or find cover before trying to fool a group of people.
Enchanters on the other hand are just screwed.
|
|
Show me where in the RAW is states that there is more to the spellcasting to see than the components.
They don't. I've said that, Gren has said that, it's been said several times. But conversely, show me in the RAW where "You must see the spell as it is cast" means "You must see the spell's components as the spell is cast." (Hint: You can't, because they don't.) It may make sense to you, but the rules don't say it. And against that position, you have the following facts:
1) The developers have said it doesn't work that way.
2) The metamagic feats in question and the Spellcraft rules say nothing about modifying the DC to identify the spell based on the lack of components.
3) The 3.5 version of Spellcraft did say something about seeing the components in order to identify the spell - that line has been removed in Pathfinder.
I encourage my players to be descriptive with everything their characters do. If that means when they cast their hands are wreathed in fire and their eyes glow blue, that's awesome. I applaud them for their RP. If down the line, they invest in still/silent/eschew and try to cast something without being noticed, I'm going to interpret those feats as covering the flame-wreathing and blue eyes going away as well.
That means as a DM I have enabled both dramatic flavor in player descriptions and a heavy feat investment to hide their spellcasting.
Bards can hide their spellcasting with a swift action, bardic performance round and a sweet tune by investing in half a feat (Spellsong). Obviously, the comparison is not apples to applies. But a first level bard with oratory can cast charm person unnoticed by saying "And lo, Jacketh, you are such a great friend to me. Our friendship shall go unmatched in all the lands." Bam, scary barbarian Jacketh is now best buds with the bard and nobody knew a spell was cast. As levels continue, a well-build bard will crank the DC based on that perform check to ridiculous heights.
|
|
I encourage my players to be descriptive with everything their characters do. If that means when they cast their hands are wreathed in fire and their eyes glow blue, that's awesome. I applaud them for their RP. If down the line, they invest in still/silent/eschew and try to cast something without being noticed, I'm going to interpret those feats as covering the flame-wreathing and blue eyes going away as well.
That means as a DM I have enabled both dramatic flavor in player descriptions and a heavy feat investment to hide their spellcasting.
Bards can hide their spellcasting with a swift action, bardic performance round and a sweet tune by investing in half a feat (Spellsong). Obviously, the comparison is not apples to applies. But a first level bard with oratory can cast charm person unnoticed by saying "And lo, Jacketh, you are such a great friend to me. Our friendship shall go unmatched in all the lands." Bam, scary barbarian Jacketh is now best buds with the bard and nobody knew a spell was cast. As levels continue, a well-build bard will crank the DC based on that perform check to ridiculous heights.
One big problem with that. It's fine that your people RP that but saying your hands glow blue isn't supposed to give you any sort of advantage in the game.
You can't base a rule such as Counterspelling and Identification on something that some DM's do and some don't. Now you can rule 0 components but the default to spellcasting is components. Those trying to argue with that are just dead in the water. The only thing identified with the casting of spells are the components, there is nothing else by RAW that is associated with it.
|
|
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and
precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one
hand free to provide a somatic component.
Hmmmm precise movement of the hand. That's a given.
Material (M): A material component consists of one or
more physical substances or objects that are annihilated
by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost
is given for a material component, the cost is negligible.
Don’t bother to keep track of material components with
negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as
you have your spell component pouch.
Physical substance.
Now some of you can argue all day long but V,S,M are part of the spell process. They are listed in the diagram of the spell.
Components
A spell’s components explain what you must do or
possess to cast the spell.
What you must do. So if it has a "S" in it;s description then you must move your hand in a precise manner. If the spell has a S and an M then you must have the physical substance and you must move your hand in the precise movements.
Now those that are arguing, please show something from that book that better supports your argument.
The only thing identified with the casting of spells are the components, there is nothing else by RAW that is associated with it.
But there's also nothing in the RAW that says that the only thing identified with the casting of spells are the components. In fact, the RAW never mentions the components used in casting even once when in reference to identification.
|
I think of magic as the manipulation of the fabric of reality. It makes sense to me that any spell would have some kind of observable effect as a spellcaster warps existence to his whim. This effect could be visual (threads of light) or audible (hum or crackling). It could be a perceived aura or pressure on the back of the mind. It could be a little portal to an elemental plane.
I also think of components as a kind on mnemonic device a spellcaster uses to help control and focus this reality warping power. Maybe components simply allow a spellcater to cast a spell at its most efficient.
Metamagic feats increase the spell level required to cast a spell. Removing a component can then be seen as removing a mnemonic device to cast a spell less efficiently by dumping more raw power into the spell. This means whatever observable effect (if there is one) would be made more apparent. Embiggened, even.
So, perhaps this more apparent effect would offset the lack of a spell component to make identifying a spell via spellcraft a wash. No penalty, nor bonus to spellcraft.
Just some of my thoughts. I didn't mean to interrupt. Please continue your back and forth.
Components
A spell’s components explain what you must do or
possess to cast the spell.What you must do. So if it has a "S" in it;s description then you must move your hand in a precise manner. If the spell has a S and an M then you must have the physical substance and you must move your hand in the precise movements.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe I see your point. Could you perhaps elaborate? What does the actions required for casting of the spell have to do with the spell itself? I'm at a loss for a correlation.
Show me where in the RAW is states that there is more to the spellcasting to see than the components.They don't. I've said that, Gren has said that, it's been said several times. But conversely, show me in the RAW where "You must see the spell as it is cast" means "You must see the spell's components as the spell is cast." (Hint: You can't, because they don't.) It may make sense to you, but the rules don't say it.
I am aware of this. I you look closely I have been arguing that both positions are valid interpretations of the RAW.
1) The developers have said it doesn't work that way.
That tells us Jason's interpretation of the RAI. It wouldn't be the first time the developers have told us the RAI is different from the RAW. Also, it has been a year and a half since Jason made that post, but it hasn't made it into the official FAQ. Jason's opinion has huge implications on the usability of whole schools of magic, and maybe the development team wants to discuss it before they make it the official rule.
2) The metamagic feats in question and the Spellcraft rules say nothing about modifying the DC to identify the spell based on the lack of components.
Yet the exact same dev post you mentioned says that is an acceptable interpretation of the RAW. Are devs only right when they agree with you?
3) The 3.5 version of Spellcraft did say something about seeing the components in order to identify the spell - that line has been removed in Pathfinder.
It hasn't been removed. It was revised to "Must see the spellcasting clearly. Perception penalties apply". So now instead of it being clear what you must see, it is dependent on what the DM thinks the words see, spellcasting, and clearly mean. I would also point out that quoting FAQs to DMs is a great way to get kicked out of games.
One big problem with that. It's fine that your people RP that but saying your hands glow blue isn't supposed to give you any sort of advantage in the game.
You can't base a rule such as Counterspelling and Identification on something that some DM's do and some don't. Now you can rule 0 components but the default to spellcasting is components. Those trying to argue with that are just dead in the water. The only thing identified with the casting of spells are the components, there is nothing else by RAW that is associated with it.
The implication of my post is that hands glowing blue imparts no bonuses or penalties. I'm saying that I'm fine with spellcasting having other visible effects. Maybe when a haunted oracle casts, you see a spirit peaking out from behind him.
But I wouldn't let that description alter the mechanics in the game. If you do, you'll end up with everybody describing everything with no visible effect at all, including any spells that don't specifically mention a visible effect.
I want my players (and myself) to describe their effects in glorious ways (where appropriate; I don't envision a charm spell having a visible effect). But those effects don't give them a penalty (or bonus) beyond what the rules state. Just because the PC's hands glow blue doesn't mean he's any easier to spot or identify than a caster who chooses to have no visible effect. And if that caster is trying to cast steathily (either through Spellsong or metamagic feats), the blue hands part can simply not be part of that casting's description.
I don't think the omission of spell's having visual effects beyond the components was an accident. I think they'd rather let DMs decide how crazy looking casting in their games are. Components/still/silent/eschew gives you a base to build your own game off of or to leave just the base there and play with that alone.
|
|
1) The developers have said it doesn't work that way.
That tells us Jason's interpretation of the RAI. It wouldn't be the first time the developers have told us the RAI is different from the RAW. Also, it has been a year and a half since Jason made that post, but it hasn't made it into the official FAQ. Jason's opinion has huge implications on the usability of whole schools of magic, and maybe the development team wants to discuss it before they make it the official rule.
2) The metamagic feats in question and the Spellcraft rules say nothing about modifying the DC to identify the spell based on the lack of components.
Yet the exact same dev post you mentioned says that is an acceptable interpretation of the RAW. Are devs only right when they agree with you?
That's a blatant misreading of Mr. Buhlman's post:
Edit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.
Applying a penalty would be RAI, not RAW, according to what he said. And yes, it's entirely a valid houserule. But there's no equivocation here - RAW says you change nothing about identifying the spell for the lack of components. Period.